150 SEPULCHRAL MONUMENTS AT CLIFTON REYNES, BUCKS.

The lady wears over her head a veil, which falls on each side of the face to the shoulders. The neck and chin are covered with a wimple reaching almost up to the under lip. The dress is low in front about the neck, and falls in folds down to the feet. The gown is sleeveless with long shts for the arms. The hands are raised in jirayer. The head rests on two cushions, and the feet on a dog similar to that at her husband's feet. The monument has neither date, insci'iption, nor armorial bearings. Lipscomb assigns it to Sir Thomas de Reynes, who married Joan, daughter of Baron Seton, of Scotland, and (hed a.d. 1380. He says elsewhere, however, that he married the daughter of Sir Thomas Seyton, of Scyton, CO. Northampton, and died in 1389. Vol. iv. p. 103. A manuscri])t History of Clifton, written in 1821 by the Rev. Edward Cooke, rector of Haversham, and left by him to the rector of Clifton for the time being, states that these effigies " are of considerable antiquity, and were probably designed for some of the Borard family, or for that Thomas Reynes and his wife, who succeeded them in the estate," and died about A.D. 1310. Lipscomb's conjecture is undoubtedly erroneous ; for the monument evidently belongs to a far earlier period than a.d. 1380, and even earlier, I doubt not, than a.d. 1310. The entire absence of plate armour, except genouilleres, the sleeveless surcoat, the unornamented sword-belt, resembling a plain strap, fastened by a common buckle instca<l of the richly-chased ornament of the four- teenth century, unless we su]ipose that the ornaments were liere indicated by colour, which has been effaced; the absence, also, of the dagger, and the cross-legged attitude, are suffi- cient characteristics for assigning the male eiligy to the thir- teenth century. The peculiarities of the lady's costume cfpially belong to the same century. Consequently, viewing these effigies in connection with the history of the manor, 1 am inclined to assign them to Simon de liorard and J^Fargaret liis wife, daughter of Sir Asceline Sydenham of Titchmerch, l)y whom he Itocame possessed of part of that manoi-. This Simon lie l)orard died shortly before Il2<i7. which agrees with the aj)prirent date of the nioiniment. The (yhin-ch of Clifton, winch had been fouiuh'd l)y one of his ancestors, who, liowcver, was only a sub-feudary l«>iil dl' the manor, probably was a small edifice. Ihit allei" the attainder of